So, what does this mean for me? HB2804 So, what does this mean for me?

Key Aspects Five domains evaluated beginning 2017-18 A-F accountability ratings assigned beginning in 2017- 18 Texas Commission on Next Generation Assessments and Accountability established for recommendations

Committees Everywhere! Commis. Morath ATAC APAC AADC TCNGAA Accountability Technical Advisory Committee Accountability Policy Committee Academic Achievement Distinction Designations Committee Texas Commission on Next Generation Assessments Accountability Ultimate decisions for Indices and Standards come from Commissioner

Texas Commission on Next Generation Assessments and Accountability

TCNGAA Group appointed by Commissioner Final report released to Governor and Legislature August 31st 9 Recommendations 5 Study Proposals How these are received will have an impact on Legislative session and future of accountability

Texas Commission on Next Generation Assessments and Accountability Report to the Governor of Texas and Texas Legislature (TCNGAA) Established to develop and make recommendations for new systems of student assessment and public school accountability To develop its recommendations, the commission met seven times in 2016, during which it heard expert and public testimony and participated in facilitated work sessions.

TCNGAA Recommendations Implement an Individualized, Integrated System of Multiple Assessments Using Computerized-Adaptive Testing and Instruction. Commissioner Approved Locally Developed Writing Assessments. Continue Streamlining of the TEKS. Limit State Testing to the Readiness Standards.

TCNGAA Recommendations Add College-Readiness Assessment to Domain IV Indicators, and Fund a Broader Administration of College-Readiness Assessments Align the State Accountability System with ESSA. Eliminate Domain IV from State Accountability Calculations for Elementary Schools More Emphasis on Growth in Domains I-III Retain IGC Option for Graduation

Items to Think About Align the Next Generation of Texas Assessments to the Texas Success Initiative Assessment (TSIA) and Nationally Recognized College Readiness Tests and Include Assessments Aligned to Measures That Are Not Typically Used in Higher Education, such as the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) Conduct a Study to Explore the Implications of Replacing the State Developed Assessment System with Nationally Recognized Assessments that Align with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) Curriculum Standards

Items to Think About Conduct a Study of Alternative, District- Based Assessment and Accountability Systems Conduct a Study, Using Existing Data, to Test the Relationship Between the Results of Stratified, Random Sampling and Whole Population Testing Conduct a Study of the Effect of Weighting Domain I (Student Achievement) by the Length of Time a Student Has Been Enrolled in a Texas Public School District

Goals of State Accountability Texas will be among the top ten states in postsecondary readiness by 2020 by improving student achievement at all levels in the core subjects of the state curriculum*; ensuring the progress of all students toward achieving advanced academic performance*; closing advanced academic performance level gaps among student groups*; and, rewarding excellence based on other indicators in addition to state assessment results.

Goals of State Accountability Texas shall also adopt a set of indicators of the quality of learning and achievement by improving student preparedness for success in subsequent grade levels and in entering the workforce, military, or postsecondary education; continue closing academic performance level gaps among student groups; evaluating districts and campuses based on five domains of indicators of achievement; and evaluating the percentage of students who meet the standard for annual improvement on assessments.

HB2804 Implementation HB 2804 June 2015 TCNGAA Spring-Summer 2016 TCNGAA Report to Governor Sept 1 TEA adopts A-F Dec 1 TEA Issues “What If” Jan 1 Districts & Campuses Report CaSE Summer 2017 Districts & Campuses Assign A-F Domain V TEA issues real A-F August 2018

Accountability Calendar for 2016-2017 Jan 1 Release “What If” Feb Targets for 16-17 Sept ATAC Begins Dec 1 Indicators for A-F Adopted Nov APAC Reviews Dec ATAC 16-17 Standards Jan APAC review 16-17 Aug 15 2017 Ratings Released

College Board Influence Commissioner Morath interprets this as 60% of high school graduates will be college ready by 2030 These numbers will influence targets from here forward Commissioner’s Wish: 90 – Level II Satisfactory 60 – Final Level II 30 – Level III What is “post-secondary ready” as defined by state assessment?

STAAR Performance Categories and Post-Secondary Readiness

Accountability 2017-2018 All assumptions of development is based on keeping the same assessments in place and there will not be any legislative changes that will cause a redesign.

Parent & Community Involvement Closing Performance Gaps House Bill 2804 Domain I Overall Performance Domain II Progress Domain V Parent & Community Involvement Overall Rating Domain IV Academic Attainment Domain III Closing Performance Gaps

HB 2804 Domain III Domain IV Domain Domain V Domain II I STAAR 3-8 & EOC at Satisfactory STAAR 3-8 & EOC at College Ready STAAR Alt 2 at Satisfactory STAAR Annual Improvement at Satisfactory STAAR Annual Improvement at College Ready STAAR Alt2 Annual Improvement Reductions in academic achievement differential among students from various subgroups District and Campus selected 3 categories for CaSE Ratings

Weighting All weighting decisions are made by the Commissioner For “what if” report are thinking equal weighting for Domains 1-3

Overview You will receive a letter grade for each of the Domains You will receive an overall rating Some domains may be weighted and have an impact on other domains Anything scored a D or F will be considered Improvement Required Cut scores for the “What If” report will be based on the 15-16 data

Domain 1 Development Domain 1 must include assessment results at: Level II Satisfactory Final Level II Commissioner would also like to include Level III: Advanced even though not required in statute. Idea is that it will be an adult behavior modification – move kids higher.

Weights higher performing students: Domain 1 Development Standard STAAR & STAAR A Tests STAAR Alt 2 Tests Level II Satisfactory Performance or Above Level II Satisfactory Standard or Above (includes substitute assessments) Level II Satisfactory or Above Final Level II Performance or Above Final Level II or Above (including substitute assessments) Advanced Level Performance Advanced Level III Level III Accomplished Weights higher performing students: Advanced = 3 points Final II = 2 points Satisfactory = 1 point

Level II Satisfactory + Level II Final + Level III Advanced Domain 1 Development Concerns: If the denominator is 300 (100 for each of 3 categories, it is extremely difficult to do well In all likelihood, will never have 100% of kids at Level III If all of your students pass at Level II Satisfactory, but none reach final or Level III, your campus would have a 33% which would be a “D” Performance across all grades and subjects. Minimum size requirement of 25 (all grades and subjects) Level II Satisfactory + Level II Final + Level III Advanced 300

Domain 1 Scoring A-F letters will use percentiles from Domain 1 scores Reminder: Commissioner’s ultimate expectation is that… 90% of students meet Level II Satisfactory, 60% reach college ready standard, and 30% reach Level III advanced. Campus Type A (10 percent) B (30 percent) C (45 percent) D F (5 percent) Elementary 63 or more 48-62 34-47 29-33 28 or less Middle 62 or more 45-61 32-44 26-31 25 or less High School 47-62 34-46 AEA 37 or more 26-36 13-25 10-12 9 or less

STAAR Performance Standard Sample Calculation ATAC Recommendation for Weighting: 55 points come from Level II Satisfactory 25 points from Final Level II 20 points from Advanced Level III STAAR Performance Standard Percent of Tests Total STAAR Points 133 Level II Satisfactory or Above 80 Final Level II or Above 40 Possible Points = 300 Advanced Performance 13 Domain 1 Score = 44.3

Required Improvement Only available for D and F Ratings Required enough improvement to meet the Level II Satisfactory Performance Standard of 90% in five years Actual Change Required Improvement (Level II Satisfactory Performance in 2016) – (Level II Satisfactory Performance in 2015) ≥ (Level II Satisfactory Performance Standard of 90) – (Level II Satisfactory Performance in 2015) 5

Domain II HB 2804 requires the inclusion of a progress measure for STAAR Satisfactory and college- ready standards This domain will have an entire overhaul to a true progress model. Options include: Transition Tables Regression Model

Transition Tables – Option 1 Use transition scores as reported by growth model:

Transition Tables – Option 2 Use transition scores as reported by growth model with an adjustment to a low threshold of zero (0) for all negative transitions.

Transition Tables – Option 3 Use transition scores as reported by growth model with an adjustment to a low threshold of zero (0) for all negative transitions and adjustment for maintenance at high performance.

Transition Tables ETS is still working on possible models for transition tables Regression model is not off the table, but believed too difficult for parents and community to understand If transition is used, will have to have very discrete measures for growth with transition bands.

Domain III Option 1 Aggregated gap model – measures differential for the two lowest performing racial and ethnic groups and economically disadvantaged student relative to a performance goal at the Final Level II standard Score is equal to the average gap of the Economic Disadvantage and lowest performing group(s) from a goal of a final level II performance or above 60

Domain III - Aggregated Minimum size = 40 tests across all grades and subjects / Eco Dis always included Lowest groups selected same as Index 3 before Domain score is the average difference between the evaluated student groups’ Final Level II or above the 60 percent threshold

% Final level II or Above Domain III - Sample Student Group Threshold % Final level II or Above Gap Eco Dis 60 32 28 African Amer 33 27 White 40 20 Sum of gap / # Groups Evaluated 75/3 Domain III Score 25

Domain III Scores Campus Type A (10 percent) B (30 percent) C (45 percent D F (5 percent) Elementary 5 or less 6-20 21-35 36-40 41 or more Middle 10 or less 11-25 26-38 39-43 44 or more High School 2 or less 3-19 20-35 AEA 28 or less 29-45 46-54 55-57 58 or more Required Improvement will be available and will determine whether the district or campus can meet the “C” threshold in 5 years.

Domain III Option 2 Concerned about “double-dipping” – many campuses miss Index 3 because the same kids repeating Calculate Eco. Dis. and Races separately 3A – Economically Disadvantaged 3B - use the Race only as a safeguard Regression Model Example– with Domain 1 score on Y-axis and % Free and Reduced on X-axis Determine whether you are above or below the mean

Double Dipping

Domain III Option 2 Eco Dis would be the true domain score, and race/ethnicity would be used as safeguard or have the ability to bump or drop domain 1 or 2 score Closure based on residuals using standard deviations A&F +/-1.50 SD B&D +/- 0.50 to 1.49 SD C +/-0.49 SD STAAR / Domain 1 % Free and Reduced

Domain IV High School and K-12 for January: Graduation / Annual Dropout Rate = 10% of 35% or 29% Postsecondary Readiness Score = 25% of 35% or 71% # graduates completed RHSP / DAP / FHSP-E / FHSP- DLA # graduates who met TSI criteria on reading and math # graduates enrolled in CTE coherent sequence # graduates earning 12 or more hours of postsecondary credit # graduated completed one or more AP or IB courses

Domain IV Middle School and Junior High Indicators for January: Student Attendance Difficult to use, because an attendance rate of 92% would put you in the “F” range as the bottom 5th percentile Dropout Rate Percentage of Students in 7th or 8th Grade who Receive Instruction in Preparing for HS, College, and Career Percentage of Students who Received HS Credit Prior to Grade 9

Domain IV Elementary Indicators for January: Attendance Rate Consideration for Chronic Absenteeism # Students absent 10 percent or more of the school year

Issues with Domain IV Considering many new additions, but all are either not created, or not being collected currently in PEIMS Student Engagement Survey Fitnessgram Discipline Data School Climate Participation in Clubs Teacher Turnover Rate AB Honor Roll GT Program Participation in UIL SSI Data

Domain V Will be what was already calculated for this year… Reminder: start working with your district and campuses to decide what 3 indicators you are going to select – will submit selection in PEIMS submission this summer Fine Arts, Wellness and Physical Education, Community and Parent Involvement, 21st Century Workforce, Second Language Acquisition, Digital Learning Environment, Dropout Prevention, Gifted and Talented Program

“What If” report Statutory requirement to release, but only have to rate each domain, not overall Will only release domains 1-4 Required Improvement will not be included May pose political issue – TEA will also release a detailed information sheet about what included You will receive via TEASE one day prior

Questions

Resources and Contacts Charlotte Baker – R3 ESC cbaker@esc3.net  Susanne Carroll – Victoria ISD Susanne.carroll@visd.net TEA Performance Reporting Resources http://tea.texas.gov/perfreport/resources/index.h tml Performance Reporting E-mail performance.reporting@tea.texas.gov